Seòmar agus comataidhean

I do agree with that. In some ways, that is what I wanted to probe the minister on. I think that I will still move my amendment, but I will discuss the matter with the minister separately, too. The crux of the issue is that there is a lot of wording and new stuff coming forward that stakeholders are really concerned about. This is about making sure that the triangular relationship between the Government, NatureScot—as the regulator—and the stakeholders works in practice. I imagine that we will come back to that as we move forward.

I will turn to my amendment 223. The bill sets out changes to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, including grounds for intervention relating to damage by deer. It sets out the conditions that NatureScot will have to believe are satisfied before intervention can take place. It then uses the wording

“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land”.

My amendment 223 seeks to change “in relation to” to “on”. At the moment, the bill uses both terms. I believe that my amendment would introduce better consistency to the drafting of the bill and that use of the word “on” would narrow the reference.

My amendment 224 is similar to amendment 223. It seeks to introduce better consistency to the bill.

My amendment 330 is consequential to my amendments 223 and 224.

Section 13 of the bill adds to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 grounds for intervention due to nature restoration. It states:

“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land, deer or steps taken or not taken ... are likely to, prevent or reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process”.

My amendment 226 seeks to delete

“, a project or natural process”

and replace it with the words “or project”. As far as I am aware, “natural process” has not been defined in previous legislation, and I therefore do not believe that it would add anything beyond what would already be covered under “work or project”. Again, I am trying to make sense of the wording for practical application of the law.

My amendment 227 is a consequential to my amendment 228.

As I have mentioned, section 13 of the bill adds to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996 grounds for intervention due to nature restoration. More fully, it states:

“This ground is met if, in relation to a particular area of land, deer or steps taken or not taken for the purposes of deer management are, or are likely to, prevent or reduce the effectiveness of work, a project or natural process that ... preserves, protects, restores, enhances or otherwise improves the natural heritage or environment”.

My amendment 228 seeks to replace “enhances or otherwise improves” with the words “and enhances”. I am concerned that allowing intervention on the basis of improving the natural heritage or environment is problematic as there is no clear baseline against which such improvements can be measured. Removing the phrase “or otherwise improves” would ensure that deer management remained aligned with the established purposes of preserving, protecting, restoring and enhancing the environment, while avoiding ambiguity over what constitutes environmental improvement.

I completely agree that our speaking after this session would be hugely valuable, minister. I am raising the points now, as is normally the case, because they are very technical, but I would welcome that discussion.

My amendments 238 and 244 seek to remove the requirement for a control scheme to

“register in the Land Register of Scotland or (as the case may be) record in the General Register of Sasines”

and replace it with a requirement to “publish on SNH’s”—NatureScot’s—“website”. That change would ensure increased public accessibility. Furthermore, removing the scheme from the title sheet would ensure that it is not legally tied to the land—I raised a concern about that at stage 1—and bring it into line with other parts of the control scheme’s operation, which are also set out on NatureScot’s website. The amendment simplifies the process by making information more accessible and transparent.

Section 19 amends section 10 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, on “Emergency measures to prevent damage by deer”. The ability to undertake such measures currently applies when deer are

“causing damage to woodland or to agricultural production, including any crops or foodstuffs”.

The bill proposes to add “natural heritage” and the “environment” to that list. My amendment 245 seeks to delete the word “environment”, which introduces broad, overarching objectives that reflect national rather than local priorities.

My amendment 232 acts as a replacement for Alasdair Allan MSP’s amendment 39, which seeks to expand the rights of occupiers to “prevent damage by deer”. In doing so, amendment 39 would create a significant safety issue for the landlord and the occupier, as well as any employees of either party.

The issue—

I will explain that in what I am about to say, I hope—but I can come back to the member on that.

The issue stems from the fact that the occupier can kill deer without notifying the landlord, provided that they have reasonable grounds to believe that the killing of deer is necessary to prevent damage. That could conceivably lead to a situation in which agents of the landlord and of the occupier are undertaking deer management or other land management activities on the same piece of land at the same time, at significant risk to the safety of both parties. My amendment 332 seeks to retain the expanded rights to kill deer on

“arable land, improved permanent pasture ... and land which has been regenerated so as to be able to make a significant contribution to the productivity of a holding which forms part of that agricultural land, or enclosed woodland”.

However, for other types of land, the amendment would make the exercising of such expanded rights conditional on authorisation from NatureScot. NatureScot would give notice of the authorisation to the landlord, and the occupier would thereafter be subject to standard authorisation conditions, including notification requirements, which I believe occupiers carry out at present.

My amendment 333 would add a new section to the bill and to the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996. It would require ministers to establish a financial assistance scheme for deer management activities. My amendment seeks to underscore the importance of providing meaningful incentives in support of sustainable deer management. It is widely considered by stakeholders from across the deer sector and beyond that financial incentives are essential, particularly in a lowland context. My amendment builds on existing pilot schemes in the central belt, Loch Ness and the Cairngorm national park and would put in place a statutory duty to incentivise sustainable deer management.

Finally, I turn to amendments 310 and 311. As currently drafted, the bill will establish a new code of practice on deer management, which we discussed widely during stage 1. However, we have no idea at present what will be in the code, and it will not be made clear until after the passing of the bill. My amendments 310 and 311 would mean that all parts of the bill relating to deer could not come into force until the new code has been publicised.

But which stakeholder is it? My understanding is that most stakeholders originally thought that there would be a much greater list of options.

We have been talking about this for years, minister, and there are four options a few months before we are going to put this into place.

If we were to vote against it today, that could be a problem.

I have a few more questions, minister. I have a fundamental concern. The Government has been talking about this with stakeholders for years and I still feel that it is a bit of smoke and mirrors. We are going around in circles and not getting the options out there. My understanding is that the original ambition was for there to be a whole new tier 2—not enhanced greening as it is now. Is it still your ambition to deliver that? If so, on what timeline?

The Scottish National Party Government has this sort of rule whereby you follow the European Union legislation that comes into place. Is that holding us back with regard to how we will move forward with our agricultural policy?

But we are keeping in step with the EU at every turn, are we not?

It has, because the Scottish Government has a policy of following EU rules and legislation.